Heritage June Auction 7 7

[Bronty]

On 5/20/2022 at 6:41 AM, Rick2you2 said:

A lot less. Internet prices are $50,000 for a dog, $35,000 for a cat, and $100,000 for a horse. 

Nobody likes cats.   Unless they eat lasagna. 

[jaybuck43]

[alxjhnsn]

Re: Sales Price of DKR #1 Cover

If we are trying to guess the price that this cover brings, we can gain a little info from the Heritage archives. 

Here are two outstanding images from the book. They were sold about a decade ago for circa $500K. 

Prices in top end OA have skyrocketed since then. 

Is the cover better/more popular than these images? Maybe. 

Has high end art gone up 5x in the last 10 years? Probably in general. Perhaps a lot more for particularly popular images like this. 

Does that set the floor at $2.5M. Could be. 

Are there at least two people willing to spend that? Beats me. It will be interesting to see.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by alxjhnsn

[Bronty]

On 5/20/2022 at 12:18 PM, jaybuck43 said:

heheh great strip you have there.

[Bronty]

On 5/18/2022 at 8:08 AM, drdonaldblake1 said:

Grail of grails for many

Fasten your seatbelts folks, 6 million is possible.......with more great OA in coming auctions as I'm sure the winner will be selling some killer material to fund their purchase

Historic time in the hobby🙂

You know, from the perspective of someone like myself who grew up during the time when this came out, its hard for me to imagine any comic cover I'd rather have from its date of publication forward.   In that, what, 36 years of comic art since this book came out, it would probably be my first choice.       

I hope it does great as I certainly think it deserves it.      Hopefully a new record for comic art. 

[Bronty]

On 5/20/2022 at 1:15 PM, alxjhnsn said:

Re: Sales Price of DKR #1 Cover

If we are trying to guess the price that this cover brings, we can gain a little info from the Heritage archives. 

Here are two outstanding images from the book. They were sold about a decade ago for circa $500K. 

Prices in top end OA have skyrocketed since then. 

Is the cover better/more popular than these images? Maybe. 

Has high end art gone up 5x in the last 10 years? Probably in general. Perhaps a lot more for particularly popular images like this. 

Does that set the floor at $2.5M. Could be. 

Are there at least two people willing to spend that? Beats me. It will be interesting to see.

 

Yeah, 2011 and 2013 are just eons ago.    I do think 2.5 kinda has to be the floor.    7.5 the ceiling IMO.    I figure around 4m.    But its a very volatile environment right now, and I don't know if it falls flat or goes nuts like the "Sugar Shack" painting from the closing credits to Good Times which just sold for 15m

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2022/05/18/ernie-barnes-sugar-shack-painting-sold/9811215002/

Edited May 20, 2022 by Bronty

[Natty Bumpo]

It's helpful to remember that at the time MIller and Varley were doing DKR it was still just a comic that needed doing, on deadline, in a fashion that would get the results they wanted. I'm sure the thought process going into each cover was something like "How do we want this to look in print and what's the easiest way to get there?" So some of the covers were done one way, others another way, and without considering historic legacy, OA resale, or whatever.

 

 

[J.Sid]

On 5/20/2022 at 6:49 PM, Natty Bumpo said:

It's helpful to remember that at the time MIller and Varley were doing DKR it was still just a comic that needed doing, on deadline, in a fashion that would get the results they wanted.

 

 

Eh, I don’t think so.

It was a huge deal that DC had “stolen” Frank from Marvel. Frank had turned a character on the verge of cancellation (DD) into a comic that was outselling Spider-Man, and DC had very high expectations.

They’d already began pushing the boundaries with high end printing, coloring and expensive glossy papers with Ronin, but the sales somewhat underwhelmed. To DC’s credit, they had faith in Miller and decided to double down. This was the first ever prestige format comic. They gave Frank tons of creative freedom with an “A” list character. They were absolutely swinging for the fences with this Batman project. (and it worked.)

 

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by J.Sid

[KingOfRulers]

On 5/18/2022 at 11:12 PM, szav said:

This may not go over well with this crowd, and I respect the book for its place in the history of the hobby, it was really groundbreaking, cool, and different from what I remember as a kid, and I think the cover demands a few million just for what it belongs to....but if it helps you be more at ease with your mehh feelings about this cover you can try and look at it like my admittedly degenerated brain sees it, and can now not unsee.  It's sort of like those optical illusions with the dual picture old lady/young lady etc.

Clearly the dark knight was previously injured trying once again to jump head first into a lightning bolt.

I agree.

For me, it is a below average cover. From an artistic perspective, I don't understand the love for the cover. If it's the love of the storyline, that's something else. But as a piece of art, it's pretty bad, in my opinion. Pluck any random Batman book out of a box, and chances are I'd prefer the cover art over this Frank Miller piece.

[Peter L]

On 5/18/2022 at 11:00 PM, wurstisart said:

I am pretty sure I get it, but your explanation does not apply to my question or comment at all, but please let us not start a heated discussion, that was and is not my intention. Simply put, why was only this cover colored over the pencil and ink version?

The explanation was not given yet and we all probably don’t have the answer, unless we say, we don’t know.
And here is why, at least in my view.

So who colored the DKR 1 cover - directly over the original pencil and ink version - from Frank Miller ? Lynn Varley.
So who colored DKR 2 and DKR 3 for example - however not directly over the original pencil and ink version - but a copy or similar ? Lynn Varley.

The point is she could have colored it over a copy as well, just as she did for other pieces.
She would have or was handed the same starting point/piece of art whether it would have been over a copy or the original.

But for this one it was done, as we know, differently because it was over the pencil and ink version. 

I totally dig that this is both, the original and colored piece and am just wondering. 

 

 

I'm no expert at this, certainly not as much as many of you, but I have some thoughts.  I have seen close up and in hand Frank Miller's work in this period and compared it to the Lynn Varley watercolors, as I am sure many of you have. 

I know the Ronin poster was painted over his pencils.  The other artwork I have seen from this period appears to be FM making a rough draft by pencil, then refining/tracing/inking it on vellum paper, then printing that image on a transparency, and Varley painting "under" that to get the colors.  Most of these have very complicated lines that I would wonder if she didn't want to obliterate the pencils/inks with paint in the case of layering paint or spray painting parts.  Many of her paintings on his pages bleed and overlap and are just abstract colors without the overlays, with his pens defining the image.  

The Ronin poster could have been her initial test of this technique so she did it directly over the pencils.  The Ronin pages appear to be done as I described above.  The DKR 1 cover could have been so simple with an outline of batman and a rough lightning bolt that she just painted directly onto the board and she wasn't afraid of obliterating his detailed pens.  

Look at his detailed pens on this one.  I think this was his finest artistic period.

[artdealer]

On 5/21/2022 at 9:28 PM, Peter L said:

I'm no expert at this, certainly not as much as many of you, but I have some thoughts.  I have seen close up and in hand Frank Miller's work in this period and compared it to the Lynn Varley watercolors, as I am sure many of you have. 

I know the Ronin poster was painted over his pencils.  The other artwork I have seen from this period appears to be FM making a rough draft by pencil, then refining/tracing/inking it on vellum paper, then printing that image on a transparency, and Varley painting "under" that to get the colors.  Most of these have very complicated lines that I would wonder if she didn't want to obliterate the pencils/inks with paint in the case of layering paint or spray painting parts.  Many of her paintings on his pages bleed and overlap and are just abstract colors without the overlays, with his pens defining the image.  

The Ronin poster could have been her initial test of this technique so she did it directly over the pencils.  The Ronin pages appear to be done as I described above.  The DKR 1 cover could have been so simple with an outline of batman and a rough lightning bolt that she just painted directly onto the board and she wasn't afraid of obliterating his detailed pens.  

Look at his detailed pens on this one.  I think this was his finest artistic period.

What’s your point?

Lynn painted the Lone Wolf covers the same way as the DKR pages. 
 

And you would be wrong to say that the original line work for the Lone Wolf covers were drawn on vellum. 
At least half of the 12 were drawn on board. 

[Natty Bumpo]

On 5/20/2022 at 10:47 PM, J.Sid said:

Eh, I don’t think so.

It was a huge deal that DC had “stolen” Frank from Marvel. Frank had turned a character on the verge of cancellation (DD) into a comic that was outselling Spider-Man, and DC had very high expectations.

They’d already began pushing the boundaries with high end printing, coloring and expensive glossy papers with Ronin, but the sales somewhat underwhelmed. To DC’s credit, they had faith in Miller and decided to double down. This was the first ever prestige format comic. They gave Frank tons of creative freedom with an “A” list character. They were absolutely swinging for the fences with this Batman project. (and it worked.)

 

 

You’re totally correct… I was speaking solely to the question  of why the technique was different from cover to cover. It was the first issue of a series and Miller and Varley had a vision of what they wanted (a statement piece) and they succeeded using the tools on hand and on deadline. And while they knew it would sell big, they couldn’t have anticipated its historical impact on the character and the medium, so it’s a minor miracle that all the cover has held up so well over time given the potential volatility of mixed media. 
 

On a personal note I adore this and every cover, and the art in the series as a whole! 

[comix4fun]

On 5/21/2022 at 10:20 AM, KingOfRulers said:

I agree.

For me, it is a below average cover. From an artistic perspective, I don't understand the love for the cover. If it's the love of the storyline, that's something else. But as a piece of art, it's pretty bad, in my opinion. Pluck any random Batman book out of a box, and chances are I'd prefer the cover art over this Frank Miller piece.

Nothing in comic art or any collectibles category is valued solely on quality, much as we might twist ourselves into pretzels analyzing ink lines and pencil flourishes. Otherwise a really good Miller painting of a bowl of peaches would be the same price as a really good DD cover. The element of enmeshed nostalgia along with pop culture significance makes up the majority of the valuation of the pieces we all collect in this hobby. 

The love of the story, or title, or character, or plot, or era of comics makes up a solid 95% (or more) of where asking/selling/trading prices and values come from. As items lacking entirely in utility and are solely emotional purchases based on illogical rationale that comes with the territory. 

If anyone was actually buying purely from an artistic perspective and ignoring, entirely, the artist's name, reputation, legacy, and the characters, titles, and stories included today's market might be flipped entirely on its head. There are plenty of unattributed pieces and pieces by people with no name in the hobby that are GORGEOUS but wouldn't hammer for $500...but put the right combo of artist, title, character, and nostalgia/history and it's $500,000.

Also, for anyone who actually lived through and reveled in the era of DKR in real time when it was first released, this series was an earthquake in the middle of the hobby. The lasting impact of the story and its influence on fans and future artists is still being felt. That makes a cover with "technical anatomy" issues "legendary". That's why almost every comic fan would take a DK Cover over any random Batman cover regardless of qualities outside of the sum total of DK #1's impact on comics.

So, where this piece ends at auction as almost nothing to do with how pretty or ugly a Batman cover it is. 

Edited May 23, 2022 by comix4fun

[KingOfRulers]

On 5/23/2022 at 3:07 PM, comix4fun said:

Nothing in comic art or any collectibles category is valued solely on quality, much as we might twist ourselves into pretzels analyzing ink lines and pencil flourishes. Otherwise a really good Miller painting of a bowl of peaches would be the same price as a really good DD cover. The element of enmeshed nostalgia along with pop culture significance makes up the majority of the valuation of the pieces we all collect in this hobby. 

The love of the story, or title, or character, or plot, or era of comics makes up a solid 95% (or more) of where asking/selling/trading prices and values come from. As items lacking entirely in utility and are solely emotional purchases based on illogical rationale that comes with the territory. 

If anyone was actually buying purely from an artistic perspective and ignoring, entirely, the artist's name, reputation, legacy, and the characters, titles, and stories included today's market might be flipped entirely on its head. There are plenty of unattributed pieces and pieces by people with no name in the hobby that are GORGEOUS but wouldn't hammer for $500...but put the right combo of artist, title, character, and nostalgia/history and it's $500,000.

Also, for anyone who actually lived through and reveled in the era of DKR in real time when it was first released, this series was an earthquake in the middle of the hobby. The lasting impact of the story and its influence on fans and future artists is still being felt. 

So, where this piece ends at auction as almost nothing to do with how pretty or ugly a Batman cover it is. 

Of course. I don't disagree. Although, I think there are some exceptions. However, in general, yes, I agree.

I just wanted to state how unimpressive the artwork is. 

[comix4fun]

On 5/23/2022 at 2:13 PM, KingOfRulers said:

Of course. I don't disagree. Although, I think there are some exceptions. However, in general, yes, I agree.

I just wanted to state how unimpressive the artwork is. 

I get that. I didn't do a very good job of stating that, when I look at this artwork, I see and feel everything this series meant at the time and since. 
It's hard for me, remembering myself standing in line to buy issue #1 in 1986 and then devouring the series and being blown away by it, to see this cover and think of it as the sum of its parts or lines, instead of seeing it as the "whole" that includes all that emotion and memory and nostalgia. 

If I were an alien or someone who didn't get to experience that era first hand I'd probably think it wasn't much to get excited about or that it was "unimpressive". I get that way with some European comics that are a very big deal to a lot of people and just bounce off of me. 

Edited May 23, 2022 by comix4fun

[KingOfRulers]

On 5/23/2022 at 3:21 PM, comix4fun said:

I get that. I didn't do a very good job of stating that, when I look at this artwork, I see and feel everything this series meant at the time and since. 
It's hard for me, remembering myself standing in line to buy issue #1 in 1986 and then devouring the series and being blown away by it, to see this cover and think of it as the sum of its parts or lines, instead of seeing it as the "whole" that includes all that emotion and memory and nostalgia. 

If I were an alien or someone who didn't get to experience that era first hand I'd probably think it wasn't much to get excited about or that it was "unimpressive". I get that way with some European comics that are a very big deal to a lot of people and just bounce off of me. 

That's definitely one thing that I'm able to do: separate the objective quality and nostalgia. Of course, it's art, so there isn't really any true "objectivity". It's all opinion/taste. But, you probably get what I mean.

For me, I have a huge amount of nostalgia for the Marvel trading cards from around 1990-1995. I have a nice collection of card art pieces. I love them, as collecting the cards as a kid holds such an important place in my heart. But I do look at many of the cards as an adult and get a laugh at how bad the artwork was. Even though I love the piece, I realize the artwork isn't great. Many are so overly-muscled and bizarre. There's some terrible facial renderings on some of those cards. I'm still nostalgic for the cards, even fully aware that the artwork was sometimes not very good or downright bad.

[comix4fun]

On 5/23/2022 at 2:44 PM, KingOfRulers said:

That's definitely one thing that I'm able to do: separate the objective quality and nostalgia. Of course, it's art, so there isn't really any true "objectivity". It's all opinion/taste. But, you probably get what I mean.

For me, I have a huge amount of nostalgia for the Marvel trading cards from around 1990-1995. I have a nice collection of card art pieces. I love them, as collecting the cards as a kid holds such an important place in my heart. But I do look at many of the cards as an adult and get a laugh at how bad the artwork was. Even though I love the piece, I realize the artwork isn't great. Many are so overly-muscled and bizarre. There's some terrible facial renderings on some of those cards. I'm still nostalgic for the cards, even fully aware that the artwork was sometimes not very good or downright bad.

You're talking to a guy who loves The Six Million Dollar Man, and collected the artwork, and toys,  but knows to never go back and try and rewatch the actual show. My eyes aren't those of a 7 year old any more. 

[tth2]

Why is there all this criticism of the artistic quality of the DK #1 cover, and yet I don't remember any criticism of the artistic quality of the page from Hulk 180 featuring Catdude Wolverine, drawn by Herb Trimpe?

There is no way that anyone can tell me a drawing by Herb Trimpe trumps anything by Frank Miller on a purely artistic/aesthetic level.

[vodou]

Somebody friendly with Howard Chaykin should get his one-sentence evaluation of both Trimpe Wolvie and Miller DKR1 cover.

And the then, if he hasn't already left the room in disgust, bring up anything else that's hammered for more than $10k  

[fsumavila]

On 5/23/2022 at 3:07 PM, comix4fun said:

Nothing in comic art or any collectibles category is valued solely on quality, much as we might twist ourselves into pretzels analyzing ink lines and pencil flourishes. Otherwise a really good Miller painting of a bowl of peaches would be the same price as a really good DD cover. The element of enmeshed nostalgia along with pop culture significance makes up the majority of the valuation of the pieces we all collect in this hobby. 

The love of the story, or title, or character, or plot, or era of comics makes up a solid 95% (or more) of where asking/selling/trading prices and values come from. As items lacking entirely in utility and are solely emotional purchases based on illogical rationale that comes with the territory. 

If anyone was actually buying purely from an artistic perspective and ignoring, entirely, the artist's name, reputation, legacy, and the characters, titles, and stories included today's market might be flipped entirely on its head. There are plenty of unattributed pieces and pieces by people with no name in the hobby that are GORGEOUS but wouldn't hammer for $500...but put the right combo of artist, title, character, and nostalgia/history and it's $500,000.

Also, for anyone who actually lived through and reveled in the era of DKR in real time when it was first released, this series was an earthquake in the middle of the hobby. The lasting impact of the story and its influence on fans and future artists is still being felt. That makes a cover with "technical anatomy" issues "legendary". That's why almost every comic fan would take a DK Cover over any random Batman cover regardless of qualities outside of the sum total of DK #1's impact on comics.

So, where this piece ends at auction as almost nothing to do with how pretty or ugly a Batman cover it is. 

This just about sums it up.